Re: IP Packet size
I am in the process of designing and developing a next generation network product line. These discussions on packet sizes and other related topics have been of immense value to me. Thanks much and keep it up. Nara On Tue, 12 December 2000, Kevin Farley wrote: I am evaluating an IP in IP encapsulation technology and would like to know the average size or size range of an IP Packet, including the 20 byte header. Can you tell me this or where to find it? Big verbose answer follows... As others have pointed out, it really depends on what is happening on the network as to what an average size would be. I think it is perhaps best to think not of the average size, but instead consider the distribution. You should also consider the network you are collecting on, the time of day, loading, etc. For example, I collected packet histograms on our corporate network which moves LOTS of email and LOTS of web pages as well as local file sharing. During the busy times, the distribution is roughly 33% of all IP packets are in the 1024 to 1500 byte category, roughly 33% are in the less than 100 byte category, and the final 34% appears to be uniformly distributed between 100 and 1024 bytes. Note that this data was taken on a corporate Ethernet during work hours. If you take data on backhaul networks, WANs, or during non-peak times, you could obtain quite different results. The point is that you need to know what your environment is. If you are looking at point-to-point links, the MTUs will be different than for an Ethernet LAN. If you are looking at WAN VPNs, then you need to consider the application data that will be carried over that link. Then there are the differences between protocols: UDP, TCP, RTP/UDP... but that is another long discussion. Kevin Farley __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free! http://photos.yahoo.com/
RE: Internationalization and the IETF
Here is my contribution to the requested definitions. -- Directory service = a software system that responds to requests for information about entities, e.g. people in an organization. It's a system for managing access to computer resources, keeping track of the users of a network,... from a single point of administration. It allows a network administrator to set up and control a database of users and resources and manage them using a directory (by example with an easy-to-use GUI, Graphical User Interface). Users, computers, sites,... can be added, updated and managed centrally ; applications can be distributed electronically. Microsoft Active Directory, Network Information Service (NIS), Novell Directory Service (NDS) and X.500 are examples of directory services. -- Address registry = a registry of numbers or addresses with some corresponding data, e.g. names. Such a registry helps maintain names, which are identifiers that are mapped to numbers or addresses. Let's say a Directory Service is multi-dimensional, in the sense it involves many types of data, many levels of information you have to search in, while an Address Registry has one dimension, in the sense it just maps addresses to their corresponding name, like a telephone registry, DNS, WINS, the "hosts" file or the "lmhosts" file. -- So, what is DNS? In the TCP/IP world, the Domain Name System (DNS) is a distributed database that provides the mapping between IP addresses and hostnames. It's just an address registry. -- E.T. -Original Message- From: Gabriel Landowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] For the sake of a good discussion can we please have a definition of "directory service" and "address registry" to make sure we are all on the same page. I think we will find that defining these may be the issue, and this will clarify the discussion to something that we can get our arms around. Gabriel Landowski Mindangle Consulting --- "Durah, Kheder" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Colleagues. This is my first transmission to IETF, and would like to second the fact that DNS is an address registry and not a directory service. RGDS Kheder Durah, Ph.D. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] As I recall, didn't we (members of the IETF list) almost have a holy (flame) war, about wheather DNS was a directory service about 6 months ago.. Once more into the breech dear friends (with apologies to Shakespeare) Jim Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 12/08/2000 08:49:24 PM Sent by: Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] Buzzt. 1000 times on the chauk board: The DNS is not a directory service... but it's an address registry?
RE: Internationalization and the IETF
Hello, I am new here but one note: Even in long term, would "Services in Rich Application Classes" = directory service could be treated differently from "Services in System Operation Classes" = DNS ? Depending on the importance for systems operations? Maybe even as sub-classes. Pan Jung Programmer/Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Kyle Lussier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 10:11 AM To: TOMSON ERIC; 'Gabriel Landowski' Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Dave Crocker'; Durah, Kheder; Randy Bush; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Internationalization and the IETF I hate to butt in here, I've been listening to these discussions for some time. (I am incredibly impressed with how smart everyone in these IETF groups is). But, what about NMS directories that contain devices (non-computer), physical location, automations, histories, provisioning, and acquisition information? There seems to be a debate to split "DNS" from "Directory" services, whereas, in long term, it is inevitable that DNS will merge with Directory services, even if current technology isn't that way. Pushing for a conceptual split in theory will slow the convergence of DNS/Directory. I would argue, that this convergence is very valuable, and is the natural progression (in long term). The concept of a directory should be a large database, with pre-defined standards for how different types of common knowledge is built in, but should also allow for user defined types, for which no existing standard exists. DNS should ultimately become one standard data type of this theoretical global directory. As should what we want to do, which is storing automations, configurations, and histories in the directory. The IETF community should be aware that it is probable that it is impossible to predict *what* one would want to store in a Directory, but that there is standard information that should be well-defined to extract from the directory. This is a passionate issue for us as no existing directory implementations have supported all of the requirements for our NMS and we built on SQL databases. Ultimately, we believe a directory service should be just like a massive SQL database, but include standard "Tables" for standard things, like user accounts, DNS, computers, etc. It should all be centrally accessible in a common manner, but support custom user types, in addition to standards for standard things. It is dangerous to say "DNS is not Directory". While in today's existing implementations that is true, ask yourself the question, in the long term, will this still be true? And if it will be, is that good or bad? I would argue, that in the long term, DNS *should* merge with Directory services. Kyle Lussier Directory service = a software system that responds to requests for information about entities, e.g. people in an organization. It's a system for managing access to computer resources, keeping track of the users of a network,... from a single point of administration. It allows a network administrator to set up and control a database of users and resources and manage them using a directory (by example with an easy-to-use GUI, Graphical User Interface). Users, computers, sites,... can be added, updated and managed centrally ; applications can be distributed electronically. Microsoft Active Directory, Network Information Service (NIS), Novell Directory Service (NDS) and X.500 are examples of directory services. -- Address registry = a registry of numbers or addresses with some corresponding data, e.g. names. Such a registry helps maintain names, which are identifiers that are mapped to numbers or addresses. Let's say a Directory Service is multi-dimensional, in the sense it involves many types of data, many levels of information you have to search in, while an Address Registry has one dimension, in the sense it just maps addresses to their corresponding name, like a telephone registry, DNS, WINS, the "hosts" file or the "lmhosts" file. -- So, what is DNS? In the TCP/IP world, the Domain Name System (DNS) is a distributed database that provides the mapping between IP addresses and hostnames. It's just an address registry. --
Agenda suggestions
The following are suggestions for improving the main agendas for future IETF meetings. With the growing use of PDAs, navigation of agendas needs to be made easier and quicker because of the limited view into the documents and the time and inaccuracy of scrolling. I have ordered these suggestions according to usefulness. 1. Put internal references into the agenda for each day. For example, "bTHURSDAY, December 14, 2000/b" would become "ba name="THURSDAY"THURSDAY, December 14, 2000/a/b". 2. Put internal references into the agenda for each session, For example, "ba name="MONDAY1300"1300-1500 Afternoon Sessions I/a/b". 3. Put a short table of contents (with links) at the top of the agenda. Like: Monday 0900 1300 1530 1930 Tuesday 0900 1300 1415 1545 1700 The following suggestions are for improving the session agendas. 1. Use a simple web document (html) instead of a text file. 2. Every named RFC and I-D should be linked to the actual document. For example "a ref="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-diffserv-new-terms-03"draft-ietf-diffserv-new-terms-03/a". This would make it easier (and thus more likely) for people to read the I-Ds. 3. If it exists, include near the top a linked reference to the appropriate WG charter page. For example, "a href="http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/diffserv-charter.html"diffserv/a". This would make it easier to understand the context of the session and decide which ones to attend. --the walrus aka Brian Jarvis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MANET test today at 2:00PM
Hi all, As was announced at the MANET wg-meeting this monday, we will be trying to conduct an experiment with a (hopefully) rather large manet at this IETF. We will be running the OLSR-code (http://hipercom.inria.fr/olsr), which is available for Linux at the www-site above. We will therefore ask anyone who has a laptop, an 802.11-card and about half an hour (and some interrest) to spare to complete the following 4-step program: 1. Download the code from http://hipercom.inria.fr/olsr 2. Compile the code on your laptop (Instructions on the WWW-site) 3. Arrive in front of the LAN-card registration desk (with laptop 802.11-card) at 02:00PM today (Decemer 13) 4. Look for a guy with glasses and a San Diego cap. We will help you configuring the olsrd and give instructions regarding the testing. NOTICE: = This is intended as a TEST - not a demonstration. There will be no flashy graphics or other such stuff. = We do not (yet) have code for Windows, MacOs or *BSD in a distributeable state. = The success of the test depends on the number of people who show up. If you *want* to prove that MANET's do not scale, then please show up. If you *want* to prove that they do - then please show up too. Mange hilsner / Sincerely --- Thomas Heide Clausen Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt) M.Sc in Computer Engineering E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW:http://www.cs.auc.dk/~voop ---
Re: Internationalization and the IETF
Kyle; There seems to be a debate to split "DNS" from "Directory" services, whereas, in long term, it is inevitable that DNS will merge with Directory services, even if current technology isn't that way. Huh? URLs are the result of such merge. URLs have ASCII domain name part followed by a path and search part. You can put any local characters with any local encoding scheme to path or search part of a URL. Browsers further encode them with % escape. Localized web servers to recognize such a URL are available. That's all and it's working. Masataka Ohta
49th-IETF conf room planning
This has likely been proposed previously, but I would like to raise the topic of mapping adequate conf rooms to WGs and BOFs. I have now attended 3 WGs that had to turn away attendees due to extreme lack of space, and several others that had plenty of extra unutilized space. Would the IETF organizers consider requesting WG/BOF attendance plans upon registration? Are there other suggestions for improvement in this process? Respectfully, -Lane
Re: guidance (re: social event politeness)
Those few of you who shrugged off a polite suggestion to join the back of the queue: we know who you are, and are prepared to identify you in front of thousands of your colleagues in the industry This is definately an RFC. We also need a BCP for where to hold conversations. (Hint: NOT in the middle of the hallways, please.)
Re: guidance (re: social event politeness)
my wife, a preschool teacher was in oslo. she said that she had never conceived that so many add (attention deficit) people could be in one place. our population has an overly high proportion of people who think that they are more 'important' than everyone else, the kind of folk who cut in plane boarding lines as if they will get to seattle sooner. feel sorry for them. life constantly reminds them that they are no more important than the rest of us tiny bags of impure water on a little ball at the far end of a big universe. randy --- ps: present company excepted, of course :-)
Re: guidance (re: social event politeness)
Sean Doran wrote: Is it appropriate to name shame people who were cutting into line yesterday during the social event, yet who did not admit to and fix the error of their ways when it was pointed out that this unfair behaviour is inappropriate? I will admit that I cut once, basically by accident, because I saw what looked like a table with nobody lined up at it--of course, the line was on the other side. I'm still not sure how I missed that--I think I was just too hungry; when I saw food, I got tunnel vision and went straight for it. I apologize. (Of course, we could discuss how the social was laid out so as to make it almost impossible to have well-defined lines...not an excuse, but it was part of the problem.) -- /==\ |John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.| |Chief Scientist |=| |eCal Corp. |Among animals, it's eat or be eaten. Among | |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|people, it's define or be defined. | \==/
Re: guidance (re: social event politeness)
On 13 Dec 2000 at 14:50 -0800, Randy Bush apparently wrote: my wife, a preschool teacher was in oslo. she said that she had never conceived that so many add (attention deficit) people could be in one place. our population has an overly high proportion of people who think that they are more 'important' than everyone else, the kind of folk who cut in plane boarding lines as if they will get to seattle sooner. I don't think it's arrogance. Most of the people I talk to at the IETF are socially aware. I suspect it's two things. First, this is a crew who have been conditioned in their jobs to do whatever it takes to accomplish goals. That's fine in a controlled environment but can cause trouble in the outside world. Second, the overcrowding at the social event was such that it was clear there was a very good chance that if you weren't at the front of a "line" you would not get what you wanted ever. Ever. Not a situation we face very often.
RE: 49th-IETF conf room planning
On this subject, may I suggest that we have outgrown hotel conference facilities. The place where we have outgrown them is hallways -- hotel facilities simply do not have adequate hallways to accommodate us. Much of the value of the meeting is the impromptu "BOF"s that occur in the hallways and other open areas. At this particular meeting, we compounded the problem by putting food service in the MIDDLE of the hall. We also, in virtually the same area put the registration area, causing close to illegal density of people. This is just unacceptable. Brian -Original Message- From: Lane Patterson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 4:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 49th-IETF conf room planning This has likely been proposed previously, but I would like to raise the topic of mapping adequate conf rooms to WGs and BOFs. I have now attended 3 WGs that had to turn away attendees due to extreme lack of space, and several others that had plenty of extra unutilized space. Would the IETF organizers consider requesting WG/BOF attendance plans upon registration? Are there other suggestions for improvement in this process? Respectfully, -Lane - This message was passed through [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is a sublist of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Harald Alvestrand.
Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning
On 12/13/00 at 1:30 PM -0800, Lane Patterson wrote: Would the IETF organizers consider requesting WG/BOF attendance plans upon registration? They do ask when the meeting is scheduled. It is up to the chair to estimate appropriately. -- Pete Resnick mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Eudora Engineering - QUALCOMM Incorporated
Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning
At 13:30 13/12/2000 -0800, Lane Patterson wrote: This has likely been proposed previously, but I would like to raise the topic of mapping adequate conf rooms to WGs and BOFs. I have now attended 3 WGs that had to turn away attendees due to extreme lack of space, and several others that had plenty of extra unutilized space. Would the IETF organizers consider requesting WG/BOF attendance plans upon registration? Are there other suggestions for improvement in this process? The biggest improvement would be if people could sign up for the meetings 2 years in advance, so that we could book big enough meeting facilities. The assignment to rooms is based on the WG/BOF chairs' estimates of attendance. Getting better estimates would help - but this would have to be done entirely automagically if it were to help the (small) secretariat staff, and be filled in correctly. Anyone volunteering to write/host the data entry pieces of this, so that we can test it at a forthcoming IETF? -- Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [EMAIL PROTECTED] +47 41 44 29 94 Personal email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: guidance (re: social event politeness)
You would think that a convention full of networking folk would have prepared better for congestion control. :-) - Original Message - From: "John Stracke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 3:12 PM Subject: Re: guidance (re: social event politeness) Sean Doran wrote: Is it appropriate to name shame people who were cutting into line yesterday during the social event, yet who did not admit to and fix the error of their ways when it was pointed out that this unfair behaviour is inappropriate? I will admit that I cut once, basically by accident, because I saw what looked like a table with nobody lined up at it--of course, the line was on the other side. I'm still not sure how I missed that--I think I was just too hungry; when I saw food, I got tunnel vision and went straight for it. I apologize. (Of course, we could discuss how the social was laid out so as to make it almost impossible to have well-defined lines...not an excuse, but it was part of the problem.) -- /==\ |John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.| |Chief Scientist |=| |eCal Corp. |Among animals, it's eat or be eaten. Among | |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|people, it's define or be defined. | \==/
Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning
Pete Resnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/13/00 at 1:30 PM -0800, Lane Patterson wrote: Would the IETF organizers consider requesting WG/BOF attendance plans upon registration? They do ask when the meeting is scheduled. It is up to the chair to estimate appropriately. A couple of times earlier (but I don't remember it being done this time) the registration process has contained a brief questionnare on what sessions/bofs you wanted to attend. Pete Resnick mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --Johnny
Re: guidance (re: social event politeness)
RED On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Steve Conner wrote: You would think that a convention full of networking folk would have prepared better for congestion control. :-) - Original Message - From: "John Stracke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 3:12 PM Subject: Re: guidance (re: social event politeness) Sean Doran wrote: Is it appropriate to name shame people who were cutting into line yesterday during the social event, yet who did not admit to and fix the error of their ways when it was pointed out that this unfair behaviour is inappropriate? I will admit that I cut once, basically by accident, because I saw what looked like a table with nobody lined up at it--of course, the line was on the other side. I'm still not sure how I missed that--I think I was just too hungry; when I saw food, I got tunnel vision and went straight for it. I apologize. (Of course, we could discuss how the social was laid out so as to make it almost impossible to have well-defined lines...not an excuse, but it was part of the problem.) -- /==\ |John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.| |Chief Scientist |=| |eCal Corp. |Among animals, it's eat or be eaten. Among | |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|people, it's define or be defined. | \==/ -- -- Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED] Academic User Services [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key Fingerprint: 1DE9 8FCA 51FB 4195 B42A 9C32 A30D 121E -- It is clear that the arm of criticism cannot replace the criticism of arms. Karl Marx -- Introduction to the critique of Hegel's Philosophy of the right, 1843.
Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning
On Thu, 14 Dec 100, Johnny Eriksson wrote: Pete Resnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/13/00 at 1:30 PM -0800, Lane Patterson wrote: Would the IETF organizers consider requesting WG/BOF attendance plans upon registration? They do ask when the meeting is scheduled. It is up to the chair to estimate appropriately. A couple of times earlier (but I don't remember it being done this time) the registration process has contained a brief questionnare on what sessions/bofs you wanted to attend. Yes, but I don't recall that the room size problem was solved at these IETF's. Henk -- Henk UijterwaalEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 -- A man can take a train and never reach his destination. (Kerouac, well before RFC2780).
Re: guidance (re: social event politeness)
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 03:42:25PM -0800, Scott Brim wrote: ... Second, the overcrowding at the social event was such that it was clear there was a very good chance that if you weren't at the front of a "line" you would not get what you wanted ever. Ever. Not a situation we face very often. Indeed I waited on line for 15 minutes and when I finally got to the food table there was NOTHING (except some Chick Peas). I stood around for a while and eventually wandered away. For my second attempt, I was not so polite (and the line was a bit amorphous), but I got food! We shouldn't criticize people based on their behavior in a crowded and poorly organized arrangement (the placement of the food by the theater made determining who was on what line problematical). -Jeff
Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning
"Rosen," == Rosen, Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rosen, On this subject, may I suggest that we have outgrown hotel Rosen, conference facilities. The place where we have outgrown them is Rosen, hallways -- hotel facilities simply do not have adequate hallways This, this isn't the first time this has occured. I'm kind of glad that I couldn't go at the last minute :-) [I was rewarded with 25cm of snow] Orlando was particularly bad last year, although Minneapolis was okay. Pittsburgh was not great, except during cookie time, and there was only was critical congestion point, which could have been solved by putting no cookies there. How are people finding it to get to and from the conference hotel? My impression is that the choice of hotel was geographically one of the worse choices possible for in San Diego. Rosen, At this particular meeting, we compounded the problem by putting Rosen, food service in the MIDDLE of the hall. We also, in virtually Rosen, the same area put the registration area, causing close to illegal Rosen, density of people. This is just unacceptable. Ick. The requirement for several thousand hotel rooms in close proximity, 10 tracks of working group meetings, terminal room, etc. likely limits the number of cities that we can go to. I notice we are going back to Minneapolis, and I've been to DC both times (will they ever finish remodeling that hotel?). I didn't make LA the second time, so I don't know if it occured in the same hotel or not. The first time (when we were 1400 or so, I think) was perfect in LA. :!mcr!:| Solidum Systems Corporation, http://www.solidum.com Michael Richardson |For a better connected world,where data flows fastertm Personal: http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/People/Michael_Richardson/Bio.html mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning
This would need to be integrated with the general registration mechanism to have any chance of being representative. Or you can hand out yellow badges to those who filled out the form. If the room is full, the white badges get kicked out Harald Alvestrand wrote: At 13:30 13/12/2000 -0800, Lane Patterson wrote: This has likely been proposed previously, but I would like to raise the topic of mapping adequate conf rooms to WGs and BOFs. I have now attended 3 WGs that had to turn away attendees due to extreme lack of space, and several others that had plenty of extra unutilized space. Would the IETF organizers consider requesting WG/BOF attendance plans upon registration? Are there other suggestions for improvement in this process? The biggest improvement would be if people could sign up for the meetings 2 years in advance, so that we could book big enough meeting facilities. The assignment to rooms is based on the WG/BOF chairs' estimates of attendance. Getting better estimates would help - but this would have to be done entirely automagically if it were to help the (small) secretariat staff, and be filled in correctly. Anyone volunteering to write/host the data entry pieces of this, so that we can test it at a forthcoming IETF? -- Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [EMAIL PROTECTED] +47 41 44 29 94 Personal email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message was passed through [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is a sublist of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Harald Alvestrand.
Re: guidance (re: social event politeness)
Is it appropriate to name shame people Be liberal in the abuse you accept, and conservative in the abuse you dole out. - RL "Bob"
Re: guidance (re: social event politeness)
At 16.18 -0800 00-12-13, Steve Conner wrote: You would think that a convention full of networking folk would have prepared better for congestion control. :-) As long as you don't start doing fragmenting. paf --
Re: guidance (re: social event politeness)
Thanks for the feedback, public and private. It is pretty clear that we attendees should talk to Qualcomm and Cisco about the disorganization of the social event. Our individual account team or sales people seem like good targets for complaints. However, wrt queue-jumping, there is a serious qualitative difference between what some of us are admitting to (innocently not realizing there ws a queue) and what happened in the IMAX queue. What I observed was this: the elevated red cloth strips forming the "walls" of the serpentine line to the IMAX show seemed to attract a sizable handful of people who realized that they can be "ducked under", or indeed, dismantled. I am sad to say that I saw this frequently while I was in one or the other corner near the IMAX theatre exit doors. When some friends and I pointed out to people doing this queue-jumping that they were being unfair to everyone else (who were suffering from the same disorganization), approximately 3/4 of the people in question left the queue and rejoined it at the back. Others required firmer persuasion, and a few required a threat of exposure on this mailing list before un-jumping from the queue. There were only FOUR people who refused to leave the queue. None offered an excuse (such as, I was just throwing away some garbage, or getting drinks for my friends here). They simply stayed in place, apparently not caring that they cut in ahead of hundreds of people who followed normal rules most of us learned as children. Two of these people were wearing their IETF conference badges. One was identified by several people nearby, who recognized her. One guy not only said "go ahead and name me", he attempted to identify himself AS SOMEONE ELSE, by handing over another person's business card. To this person: WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE NOW. I believe at least some of this is unacceptable behaviour that cannot be overlooked simply by virtue of general disorganization or industry competitiveness, and look for guidance about how we should (collectively) police such poorly-socialized people, if at all. Sean.
Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning
its appropriate that the 51st ietf is gonna be in the '51st state" - we've been playing with market forces for 23 years (18 years of margaret thatcher then john major, then tony blair) - solutons in london will involve vickrey auctions for the seats - themoney will be used to pay for upgrading the railway track from heathrow airport to the ietf venue tp make sure people dont miss more than a day of the fest cheers jon p.s. congrats to bush - i am glad to see that the law of succession is being restored in the US after many ears ofrejection of uk rule
Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning
Michael Richardson wrote: "Rosen," == Rosen, Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rosen, On this subject, may I suggest that we have outgrown hotel Rosen, conference facilities. The place where we have outgrown them is Rosen, hallways -- hotel facilities simply do not have adequate hallways This, this isn't the first time this has occured. I'm kind of glad that I couldn't go at the last minute :-) [I was rewarded with 25cm of snow] Orlando was particularly bad last year, although Minneapolis was okay. Pittsburgh was not great, except during cookie time, and there was only was critical congestion point, which could have been solved by putting no cookies there. How are people finding it to get to and from the conference hotel? My impression is that the choice of hotel was geographically one of the worse choices possible for in San Diego. Rosen, At this particular meeting, we compounded the problem by putting Rosen, food service in the MIDDLE of the hall. We also, in virtually Rosen, the same area put the registration area, causing close to illegal Rosen, density of people. This is just unacceptable. Ick. The requirement for several thousand hotel rooms in close proximity, 10 tracks of working group meetings, terminal room, etc. likely limits the number of cities that we can go to. I notice we are going back to Minneapolis, and I've been to DC both times (will they ever finish remodeling that hotel?). I didn't make LA the second time, so I don't know if it occured in the same hotel or not. The first time (when we were 1400 or so, I think) was perfect in LA. Last time in LA worked OK, I thought. It's probably a good choice for another visit. The Fairmont in San Jose also has a decent layout and worked well last time we were there. The hallway issue is one that's been a problem at a number of venues over the last several years. I am starting to wonder if we're going to have to hold the meetings primarily in Las Vegas. Vegas has the advantage of TONS of hotel rooms, plenty of meeting space, and everything's close together. The hotel rooms are relatively cheap (no idea about the cost of the conference spaces, though). IETF would be a really tiny group for Vegas, but it might be a really good fit. -- - Daniel Senie[EMAIL PROTECTED] Amaranth Networks Inc.http://www.amaranth.com
Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning
"Daniel" == Daniel Senie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Daniel meetings primarily in Las Vegas. Vegas has the advantage of TONS Daniel of hotel rooms, plenty of meeting space, and everything's close Daniel together. The hotel rooms are relatively cheap (no idea about the Daniel cost of the conference spaces, though). IETF would be a really Daniel tiny group for Vegas, but it might be a really good fit. Also has fairly good flight connections. By analogy, the yearly off-continent IETF should occur in Monte Carlo? [man, I hate these stupid Exchange vacation messages]
Re: guidance (re: social event politeness)
On 14 Dec 2000, Sean Doran wrote: I believe at least some of this is unacceptable behaviour that cannot be overlooked simply by virtue of general disorganization or industry competitiveness, and look for guidance about how we should (collectively) police such poorly-socialized people, if at all. Possible solutions, in no particular order: a) "There are few problems in life that can't be adequately addressed by a suitable application of high explosives." b) Whisper "asshole" whenever you're within earshot of the offenders, simultaneously throwing a brief but withering glance at them. Encourage others who were directly or indirectly a party to the offense to do the same. c) Socially engineer their room numbers then let your inner 12 year old loose, unsupervised, in a hotel with room service and a city full of delivery services of all kinds. Depending on the delivery services you enlist, be prepared with photographic equipment. d) Be glad you don't suffer such a pathetic existence as to have to lord your supposed privilege over others in order to feel anything analogous to self-worth. Whenever you're reminded of the offenders or the offense, recall this line and chuckle softly in bemusement. If they can hear you, so much the better, because they'll know you're having a little laugh at the expense of their aforementioned pathetic existence. Of course, in spite of what you might think, reading this, I'm inclined to be a pretty nice guy :) -- Joy-Loving * Tripp Lilley * http://stargate.eheart.sg505.net/~tlilley/ -- "There were other lonely singers / in a world turned deaf and blind Who were crucified for what they tried to show. Their voices have been scattered by the swirling winds of time, 'Cause the truth remains that no one wants to know." - Kris Kristofferson, "To Beat the Devil"
Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning
At 20:22 13/12/2000 -0800, Henning Schulzrinne wrote: This would need to be integrated with the general registration mechanism to have any chance of being representative. Or you can hand out yellow badges to those who filled out the form. If the room is full, the white badges get kicked out do not think it is a jokeat the Cisco Networkers in Paris, you had to sign on for all the sessions; your agenda was printend on the back of your badge. Staff at the door would only let in the people who could show that they were listed for that session until right before the session started; only then could the rest of the folks go in. VERY Expensive. But it worked. In the IETF, we have: - Large floating population - Session scheduling done AFTER most people have signed up - Large amount of wandering in and out. We are not an easy community to plan for. -- Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [EMAIL PROTECTED] +47 41 44 29 94 Personal email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: guidance (re: social event politeness)
Another common curtesy issue this thread has raised is vacation scripts... I've recieved 3 dozen or so responses from people on the mailing list who have automated vacation scripts. Please if you must use a vaction script on your mail either unsubscribe from the mailing list while you're gone, use procmail to filter your lists so they don't get caught by your vacation script, or just don't use vacation... Judging from the laptop/wireless card density I seriously doubt any of the people using such a script are actually not reading their email here. and in any event mailing lists traffice should not generate such a response. thanks joelja On 14 Dec 2000, Sean Doran wrote: Thanks for the feedback, public and private. It is pretty clear that we attendees should talk to Qualcomm and Cisco about the disorganization of the social event. Our individual account team or sales people seem like good targets for complaints. However, wrt queue-jumping, there is a serious qualitative difference between what some of us are admitting to (innocently not realizing there ws a queue) and what happened in the IMAX queue. What I observed was this: the elevated red cloth strips forming the "walls" of the serpentine line to the IMAX show seemed to attract a sizable handful of people who realized that they can be "ducked under", or indeed, dismantled. I am sad to say that I saw this frequently while I was in one or the other corner near the IMAX theatre exit doors. When some friends and I pointed out to people doing this queue-jumping that they were being unfair to everyone else (who were suffering from the same disorganization), approximately 3/4 of the people in question left the queue and rejoined it at the back. Others required firmer persuasion, and a few required a threat of exposure on this mailing list before un-jumping from the queue. There were only FOUR people who refused to leave the queue. None offered an excuse (such as, I was just throwing away some garbage, or getting drinks for my friends here). They simply stayed in place, apparently not caring that they cut in ahead of hundreds of people who followed normal rules most of us learned as children. Two of these people were wearing their IETF conference badges. One was identified by several people nearby, who recognized her. One guy not only said "go ahead and name me", he attempted to identify himself AS SOMEONE ELSE, by handing over another person's business card. To this person: WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE NOW. I believe at least some of this is unacceptable behaviour that cannot be overlooked simply by virtue of general disorganization or industry competitiveness, and look for guidance about how we should (collectively) police such poorly-socialized people, if at all. Sean. -- -- Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED] Academic User Services [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key Fingerprint: 1DE9 8FCA 51FB 4195 B42A 9C32 A30D 121E -- It is clear that the arm of criticism cannot replace the criticism of arms. Karl Marx -- Introduction to the critique of Hegel's Philosophy of the right, 1843.
Re: guidance (re: social event politeness)
From: Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED] Another common curtesy issue this thread has raised is vacation scripts... I've recieved 3 dozen or so responses from people on the mailing list who have automated vacation scripts. Please if you must use a vaction script on your mail either unsubscribe from the mailing list while you're gone, use procmail to filter your lists so they don't get caught by your vacation script, or just don't use vacation... It's far from all vacation mechanisms that do the evil deed. If you look at the headers, you'll almost certainly find a telltale line of the form: X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (... All ordinary submissions with that black mark should be rejected. All requests sent to IETF list control addresses should be interpreted as unsubscribe requests. This would not purge the lists of the current abusers (those who insist on using that junkware and abusing the rest of us), but it would reduce their proliferation and encourage some to switch reasonable MUA's. If the IETF doesn't try to enforce minimal standards where it affects the business of the IETF, then the junkware vendors will never bother to fix their junk. Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
